Bigfoot73 Loc: Canada

Ridiculous ... LMFAO
I don't want to take side but this discussion became nightmare and empty talk without facts...

So the fact that AF lenses do not have motor (and BTW they are still produced) like AF-S makes them worse?

And I wonder why lot of Canon users use Nikon lenses with adapter .. oh yes - because they have good glass...

According to your logic we should pay for new motor with every lens instead having it in the camera. Does this means that cameras with shake reduction inside camera are worse ???

If you spend some time on eBay to look for the world most expensive and looked after lens, you will find a lot of Nikon glass ... I didn't see any old Canon glass there (a lot of new expensive glass though). Is it because old Canon glass is better or old Nikon glass is better?

Let us all switch to Leica then ...

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Ok, it's time to go over the rules, AGIAN !!
An OP comes into a room full of monkeys and ask a question. He gets a couple of quick answers and leaves. Most of us that have been here a while, know that by page two, if the OP has not come back, he probably won't.
So it's only a matter of time, and the monkeys start throwing bananas at one another. Monkeys have their tongues planted firmly in their cheeks and throw lots of bananas.
Then there are those that can't tell the difference between a banana fight and a knife fight, so they immediately start kicking monkeys in the B's.
Now, nobody will have any fun.
There is a killjoy in every crowd! :-(
Please, throw only bananas.
SS

amehta Loc: Boston

Again, a very misleading statement. First there are used Nikon AF-S lenses available, since they've been made for the past 10+ years. Second, some people specifically pay more for a better Nikon body so they an use one of the older lenses. They wouldn't just do that to save money, because they just spent extra money up front. They're really doing it because some of those lenses are fantastic lenses which don't have "modern" equivalents.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Not many people are disappointed with the D7100.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

All I am saying folks - is because of better/faster focusing of older Canon lenses - that is what generally makes them better for serious use - and because of their popularity there are MORE of them which tends to make them cheaper and more available.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Bigfoot, before you fall out of your chair, slap yourself and listen.

1, I had plenty of fact in what I said, but you dont have to believe it.

2, I don't know ANY shooters that use Nikon glass. Nor have I read, to my recollection, that anybody here on the Hog has said that as well. I assume you mean buddies of yours, or did you just read it somewhere?

3, the bodies with shake in them cost more than the same bodies w/o shack. Plus the shake is not optimized to each particular lens. Nikon tried it for a short while and gave it up. In the meantime, Canon was walking away from them.

4, How old are you talking? Pre-70's? Lots of old Canon glass out there. I had a 55mm f1.2 for a while. Very nice lens. A Nikon shooter will ONLY ever use a 1.2 if they adapt a Canon lens. On my local Craig's list, right now there are two Canon 50mm f1.0 lenses for sale. They run between $4K and $5K each. Is that good enough for you?

5, if I could afford Leica glass, I'd have a few. Even if the are manual. Leica glass is very special indeed.

Now that you've given yourself a weggy over this, where are YOUR facts?

So Bigfoot, do you live in Crescent City, or do you just drive a big truck? :lol:
SS

Bigfoot73 Loc: Canada

Before I start I didn't even replied to your post, it was somebody else's post, so I wonder where did you lost yourself ...
1. I didn't see any fact, except empty talk from a "Canon concerned user". If you believe that your talking is fact than it is your problem. I have seen a lot of your "debates" here and I saw how do you present facts ...

2. Maybe you don't know of any Canon users who use Nikon glass because you live in Crescent City ... Or you live in a woods without chance to mingle with people?

3.Bodies with shake were just metaphor for those able to understand it ...

4. here is the proof that you live in Crescent City.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36976-USA/Nikon_1435_NIKKOR_Normal_50mm_f_1_2.html

I don't need adapted Canon 1.2 when I have Nikon

You want to know my facts?
I had Leica, I had and I have Nikon and I had and I have Canon ... Unlike you I also had Zenith, Smena ...

Since now I have both of them (Canon & Nikon) in the moment I talk with facts not like a JK boy defending his precious toy and spitting to everybody playing with something else.
What I always laugh is childish chip talking like "old Nikon lenses do not have motor so they are worse" and I don't even want to comment about your posts ...
Obviously some people (recognize yourself with them) have no way of getting attention in their Crescent City so they have to argue with everybody on forums like this just to make difference in their boring days ....

Maybe when you get out and mingle with people you will change your point of view ....

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

How about this FACT: The Canon 24-70f2.8II L is sharper, more contrasty and more resolute than its Nikon counterpart.
The Nikon D800E has the highest resolving sensor (a SONY 36MP) of any DSLR out there.
Opinion: Canon ergonomics are better than Nikon's in each brand's top two DSLR models.
Fact: Canon has abandoned its earlier lens owners with the mounts that are NOT compatible with current DSLR models (a shame!). Nikon has accomodated its legacy lens owners with mounts that work on currently new DSLRs.

amehta Loc: Boston

I usually consider image quality more important than better/faster focusing. But that's just me.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Focusing is a considerable aspect of image quality .... and speed can be a significant consideration.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The Nikon lens mount is one of the things that has hindered their lens development along the way in the last 20 years ...

amehta Loc: Boston

Being in focus is an aspect of image quality. How you get there is not.

For some types of photography, AF speed is a significant consideration, with sports and birds in flight being obvious examples. But for many other types of photography, it is less important. For macro (Nikon 200mm f/4) and portraits (Nikon 135mm f/2 DC), the Nikon option are clearly worth considering, even though they don't have the built-in focusing motor.

Bigfoot73 Loc: Canada

I wonder ... how fast did Ansel Easton Adams focus his photos ....
He must have had some really fast focusing sharp lenses ...

PeterM Loc: Scio, NY

One edge that Nikon has is Lens compatibility. I can use my Nikon 50mm f1.4 from the 70's in manual mode and my Vivitar 90-230 constant f 4.5 on my DX Nikon, resulting in a very fast 135mm-350mm equivalent. You cannot do this with Cannon. Shooting manual is no big thing.

Canon has almost no backward compatibility - I read some Cannon users discussing very expensive Cannon telephotos - waiting for the next "upgrade" - sounded like cellphone geeks.

My opinion: Advantage Nikon.

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

Ansel Adams didn't photograph sports at 1/2000th shutter and f2.8. He photographed landscapes that really didn't move quite as fast as Rocket Ismail or Deion Sanders.